Update Note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical destructive trait: 'body, if provided, REPLACES the entire note body - it is not a patch or append, and any content not included in body is lost.' It also notes partial-update semantics for unspecified fields. It does not cover authorization, error behavior, or rate limits, but the key data-loss risk is clearly surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, zero waste, and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, the destructive body behavior second, and the sibling routing last. Every sentence adds decision-relevant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with an output schema available, the description covers what the tool does, the destructive edge case, and how to choose among the related section-editing tools. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning for 'body' (full replacement, not append) and clarifies that only provided fields change, which implicitly explains omitting title/body. note_id is not explicitly described, but its role is evident from the verb and required status.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing note') and the exact fields affected ('title and/or body'). It differentiates itself from siblings by naming the alternative tools for targeted edits and appends, so an agent can select correctly without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: 'For a targeted edit to part of a note, use update_note_section; to add content to the end without resending the whole body, use append_note_section.' This gives concrete when-to-use conditions that map to distinct sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.